This may be so, but even if the judge rules the act unconstitutional, that's different from invalidating the votes, because one could argue that voters acted based on info they had at the time.
I doubt any judge will toss that many votes because the legislature fucked up.
The real question is why the PA legislature, which has a senate majority being GOP passed this absurd Act. Am I missing something?
Republicans must really love losing, ffs.
Votes are either lawful or unlawful as as stipulated by state law. The legislature passes laws re: election ballots. If what voters cast were unlawful ballots it does not matter what their intent was.
Mail-in ballots may be deemed entirely unlawful simply becase the Gov, SoS + PA Supr Ct allowed votes to be received past 8 PM 11/3.
In PA the SOS and Governor mis-represented the terms of voting by mail to the public. The deception commuicated by them about receiving ballots past 8 PM as legitimate is totally on them.
Legilature said Act 77 passes allowing mail-in voting only if all ballots are received by 8 PM 11/3. Law is non-severable. For Gov and SoS + PA Sup Ct to say receive past that time is OK, it voids the law, therefore voiding ALL mail in ballots.
Because almost all mail-in ballots are written in as unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, with few exceptions (disability etc)
They tried to put through an amendment to the constitution to change that, but they didn't follow the proper procedure, so the amendment isn't even in place.
I believe Act 77 was passed by the state legislature. The constitution gives the State Legislature all the rights to decide the election. But the violation is itself is only of PA Constitution, so this wouldnt necessarily go to SCOTUS. And PA Supreme Court is already stacked and in favor of changing voting laws.
Because the provision in Act 77 states was that if Mail-in was going to be allowed to happen at all the only ballots that could be considered valid are those received by 8 PM. The Gov, SoS, and PA Supr Ct violated the provisions of Act 77, and by co-mingling the pre-8 PM with post 8 PM they have poisoned the well to the point that what ballots came in before or after 8 are indistinguishable. The 8 PM requirements have been offended in practice; therefore, the legislature themselves would be in the position of refusing to allow any mail-in ballots from being considered for electoral college purposes.
The Gov and SoS and PA Supr Ct took it upon themselves to make the 8 PM 11/3 requirement of no effect, but since the law itself was not severable it was either the whole law was operative or none of the law was operative. Since the Gov , SoS, and PA Supr Ct tried to render a portion of the law inoperative, NONE of the law is therefore operative. Therefore NONE of the mail-in ballots made possible only by passage of Act 77 are lawful and countable
Agreed. The right to vote will likely supersede in the court's mind. I'm no legal scholar but I just don't see a judge invalidating that many votes based on this violation.
This may be so, but even if the judge rules the act unconstitutional, that's different from invalidating the votes, because one could argue that voters acted based on info they had at the time. I doubt any judge will toss that many votes because the legislature fucked up.
The real question is why the PA legislature, which has a senate majority being GOP passed this absurd Act. Am I missing something? Republicans must really love losing, ffs.
Votes are either lawful or unlawful as as stipulated by state law. The legislature passes laws re: election ballots. If what voters cast were unlawful ballots it does not matter what their intent was.
Mail-in ballots may be deemed entirely unlawful simply becase the Gov, SoS + PA Supr Ct allowed votes to be received past 8 PM 11/3.
In PA the SOS and Governor mis-represented the terms of voting by mail to the public. The deception commuicated by them about receiving ballots past 8 PM as legitimate is totally on them.
Legilature said Act 77 passes allowing mail-in voting only if all ballots are received by 8 PM 11/3. Law is non-severable. For Gov and SoS + PA Sup Ct to say receive past that time is OK, it voids the law, therefore voiding ALL mail in ballots.
Why would this violate all mail ins and not just the ones that came after 8pm election day?
Because almost all mail-in ballots are written in as unconstitutional in Pennsylvania, with few exceptions (disability etc)
They tried to put through an amendment to the constitution to change that, but they didn't follow the proper procedure, so the amendment isn't even in place.
The Pennsylvanian Supreme Court will rule it constitutional because Orange Man Bad.
I believe Act 77 was passed by the state legislature. The constitution gives the State Legislature all the rights to decide the election. But the violation is itself is only of PA Constitution, so this wouldnt necessarily go to SCOTUS. And PA Supreme Court is already stacked and in favor of changing voting laws.
Because the provision in Act 77 states was that if Mail-in was going to be allowed to happen at all the only ballots that could be considered valid are those received by 8 PM. The Gov, SoS, and PA Supr Ct violated the provisions of Act 77, and by co-mingling the pre-8 PM with post 8 PM they have poisoned the well to the point that what ballots came in before or after 8 are indistinguishable. The 8 PM requirements have been offended in practice; therefore, the legislature themselves would be in the position of refusing to allow any mail-in ballots from being considered for electoral college purposes.
The Gov and SoS and PA Supr Ct took it upon themselves to make the 8 PM 11/3 requirement of no effect, but since the law itself was not severable it was either the whole law was operative or none of the law was operative. Since the Gov , SoS, and PA Supr Ct tried to render a portion of the law inoperative, NONE of the law is therefore operative. Therefore NONE of the mail-in ballots made possible only by passage of Act 77 are lawful and countable
Agreed. The right to vote will likely supersede in the court's mind. I'm no legal scholar but I just don't see a judge invalidating that many votes based on this violation.